IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (CAT).No. 1170 of 2010(S)
1. E.K.ULAHANNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KORA,
... Petitioner
2. SABU THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.(LATE)
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,
3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY
Dated :15/12/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
....................................................................
O.P.(CAT) No.1170 of 2010
....................................................................
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioners. Prayer in the O.P. is for
direction to respondents to give promotion to the petitioners as
Assistant Security Officers. On going through the Tribunal’s order, we
find that the qualification required for promotion is 8 years’ service as
Head Security Guard. Both the petitioners were promoted as Head
Security Guards in the year 2009 and obviously they don’t have the
experience to make them eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant
Security Officer. The petitioners’ case is that when there is no one
eligible to be promoted, the post could be filled up by dispensing with
the qualification. However, it is seen that respondents have appointed
eligible people on contract basis. We do not find anything irregular in
the respondents appointing eligible persons as Assistant Security
Officers on contract basis. So long as petitioners are not qualified,
they have no right to challenge contract employment at higher post.
2
We, therefore, agree with the view of the Tribunal and consequently
dismiss the O.P.(CAT).
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
BHABANI PRASAD RAY
Judge
pms